How to Improve Soccer: An American Lawyer Cross-Examines the Offside Rule

Before we get to our major case on the agenda let’s start with 2 minor cases, but first some evidence rules for the courtroom.

1. Tradition or saying “it’s been that way since 1863”, or “you like it the way it is” is not evidence in a courtroom when talking about improving a sport. It is merely an excuse because you don’t like change and it’s an attempt to wrongly prevent outdated or counter-productive rules from being abolished. 
2. Because a sport is very popular is not evidence that it cannot or should not be improved upon.  Every professional league/sport has new rules every year, some of which could be classified as major changes. 
3. Saying you’re ignorant, you don’t understand, you never played, you only watch every four years, American sports suck, “don’t try and Americanize the sport”, and childish name calling is not evidence and not allowed in the courtroom.
4. Saying it would fundamentally change the sport is an argument but it needs to be provided with examples and evidence that proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, you need to prove that the fundamental change is so great that it would ruin the sport or make it unrecognizable. 

CASE #1:

The Clock:  There is no good or logical reason to not know the exact time left on the clock and it makes the game less exciting and puts the players at a disadvantage.  Just fix it.  Case closed.

CASE #2

Substitutions:  Soccer is not different from other team sports in terms of testing an athletes’ endurance and I have yet to hear a persuasive evidence-based reason why soccer has such limited substitutions or why a player can’t return if he leaves.  Unlimited substitutions would obviously slow the game down too much, so how about 8-10 substitutions a game and a player can return once?  The players would be fresher, quicker, and the game more exciting.  Just do it.  Case closed.   

CASE #3

The Offside Rule:  

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, today’s Issues that you must decide are:  

1. Would increased scoring make soccer a more exciting sport?
2. Would increased scoring make soccer more popular in the US?
3. Would increased scoring make soccer more popular in the World?
4. Would eliminating the Offside Rule all together increase scoring but drastically fundamentally change the sport and “ruin” the sport for many of its current fans?
5. Would changing the Offside Rule significantly increase scoring but drastically fundamentally change the sport and “ruin” the sport for many of its current fans?
6. If the Offside Rule should be changed – how best to do it?

Count 1:  Of course this is an opinion question and there is no proof either way, but there is evidence suggesting that the answer is yes if the scoring increase is reasonable.  For example, doubling the scoring from 2.7 to 5.4 goals per game.  Almost no one is suggesting 10-9 contests.

The Plaintiff offers the following Exhibits:  

EXHIBIT 1:  With only 2.7 gpg soccer has evolved into a sport where the comeback, back and forth lead changes, and dramatic finishes are rare instead of the norm as sports fans want.  PERHAPS THE MOST EXCITING MOMENTS IN SPORTS IS A COMEBACK. THEREFORE, SPORTS SHOULD ENCOURAGE RULES THAT MAKE COMEBACKS MORE FREQUENT, NOT LESS.  

EXHIBIT 2:  Both Ice Hockey and Field Hockey, both comparable sports to soccer, have around 6 goals per game and almost no one complains that there is too much or too little scoring. Hence, close to 6 gpg seems to be the sweet spot to satisfy most sports fans. 

Count 2:  I believe the evidence strongly suggests yes. 

Count 3:  I believe the evidence suggests yes, although the case is less clear than in the United States. 

Count 4:  Increase scoring – yes.  Ruin the sport:  This is not clear since it hasn’t been tried on a sustained basis since 1863, but your honor, I will concede that cherry picking very close to the goal would be a turn off to a large number of soccer fans since they consider it ugly ball.

Count 5:  Increase the scoring – yes.  Ruin the sport:  Some fans believe it would ruin the sport, but there is no direct empirical evidence proving that outcome.  So I will not concede this point and for purposes of this case, the plaintiff proposes the following rule change: 

MAKE OFFSIDE LEGAL EXCEPT IN THE GOAL AREA AND ON NON-CORNER KICK SET PIECES, AND LIMIT IT TO 2 PLAYERS MAXIMUM AT A TIME.

I rejected the idea of “except in the penalty area” because I don’t think it would make enough of a difference to increase the scoring significantly but I could be wrong.  I am not opposed to testing out both ways to see for sure.  Also, there would not be enough fast breaks, which would make it more exciting. 

Plus, I don’t see a reason to do this since the player would not be close enough to the goal to be cherry picking when you have my proposal.  And saying “They would have to keep a defender back permanently to guard someone” is not persuasive if they are not in the goal area.  After all, they have 11 players, not 3, that leaves 9 players up field and both teams still have the same number all over the field.  

EXHIBIT 3: The offside rule creates the compact nature of the sport, resulting in a boring, little-action, "keep-away" style of play, while preventing one of the most exciting things in sports – the breakaway.  

Long forward passes, which can help ignite breakaways, are not bad soccer.  They are simply another strategic weapon that would increase strategy and not take away from it.  Both American Football and Ultimate Frisbee use them in limited use to great effect while soccer unnecessarily discourages them.  There is no evidence that there would be excessive long balls since a ball is harder to catch (i.e, trap) than a football or frisbee and the potential loss of possession would discourage teams. 

EXHIBIT 4:  The proposed offside rule changes will not ruin the game – Defensive Tactics would evolve to counter the new situations.  Every major rule change in every professional sport has produced new strategies and tactics (which would be interesting to the fans).  They can always tweak the rules if there is a problem with the rule changes.

EXHIBIT 5:  The 1925 Offside Rule change, which reduced the number of defending opponents required between an attacking player and the goal line from three players to two players for the attacker to be considered onside, resulted in an increase of scoring of 36%. 

EXHIBIT 6:  Field Hockey eliminated the offside rule in 1992 and one study found goals increased about 57.5% after abolition.  Defensive tactics were developed which meant players standing way up by the goal became largely useless. The sport remained tactically sophisticated while becoming more attacking and entertaining.  The game continued to thrive and became more attacking and entertaining for many players and spectators.  This does not prove soccer would experience identical results.  But it does prove that eliminating offside does not automatically destroy a continuous-flow invasion sport.

EXHIBIT 7:  Even FIFA appears to believe the current offside law may not be optimal.  Today, FIFA is supporting trials of the Arsène Wenger proposal.  That proposal would make an attacker offside only if the entire body is beyond the last defender.  If the governing body of world soccer is experimenting with ways to increase attacking play and scoring, then the argument that the current law is perfect has already been abandoned.  The only disagreement is how much the rule should change.  Once FIFA itself begins experimenting with alternative offside rules, the debate is no longer whether the current law should ever change. It becomes which change, if any, produces the best game. 

EXHIBIT 8:  The defense repeatedly argues:  "It would ruin soccer."  Where is the evidence?

There is no direct empirical proof of this and there has never been a sustained professional experiment using: 

• No offside outside the goal area.
• No offside except on non-corner kick set pieces.
• Maximum two attackers allowed beyond the defense.
• Any proposal substantially similar to the one presented here.

In other words, both sides are making predictions. The plaintiff simply asks that those predictions be tested instead of assumed. 

EXHIBIT 9:  More scoring reduces the influence of luck.  With only about 2.7 goals per game, a single bounce, deflection, penalty, or officiating mistake often determines the outcome.  Increasing scoring generally makes superior teams win more consistently.  Also, with more scoring it decreases the chance of a game being decided by penalty kicks.  

EXHIBIT 10:  The proper scientific approach is experimentation.  Measure the results objectively: 

• Goals.
• Attendance.
• Television ratings.
• Fan satisfaction.
• Possession.
• Breakaways.
• Competitive balance.

Then decide.  

Count 6:  The best way to change the offside is unclear due to lack of experimentation but tweaking it a little does not appear to be enough.  

CLOSING ARGUMENT:  Your honor, I would like to move all my Exhibits into Evidence and publish them to the Jury.  Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:

This case is not about whether my proposal is correct. It is about whether it deserves a fair trial. 

The defense has relied primarily on predictions.

The plaintiff has introduced historical precedent, statistical reasoning, comparable sports, and proposals already being tested by FIFA itself.

The defense says changing offside would ruin soccer.

Perhaps.

The plaintiff says it would improve soccer.

Perhaps.

But one side asks the Court to reject the proposal without ever testing it.

The other side asks only for the experiment.

Courts do not decide cases on speculation.

Science does not reject hypotheses without testing them.

Sports should not either.

Therefore, the plaintiff respectfully requests only one verdict:

Run the experiment.

Then let the evidence decide.

If the experiment fails, restore the current rule.

If it succeeds, soccer will have become a better sport. 

The plaintiff rests.